Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7

REPORT OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ACADEMIC PLANNING 

RELATING TO THE QUESTION OF THE PROVISION OF UNIVERSITY 

PROGRAMS IN NON-METROPOLITAN AREAS 

NOVEMBER 18 1976 

I

.

I. At the Committee meetings of November 10th and November 17 

1976, the Senate Committee on Academic Planning considered 

Dr. Bryan Beirne's Review of Aspects of the WinegardReport. 

Discussion centered on the implications and desirability of 

Simon Fraser University becoming involved in the Winègard 

proposals with a view to formulating a recommendation to be 

presented to Senate. 

Members of the Senate Committee on Academic Planning 

expressed serious reservations concerning many of the specific 

recommendations of the Winegard Report. It was the unanimous 

view of SCAPthat if Simon Fraser University assumesrespon- 

sibility for • offering university programs in non-metropolitan 

areas, SimOn Fraser University must not be bound to 

accept every specific recommendation contained in the Report. 

Rather, it: was agreed that Simon Fraser University must 

retain complete authority in the determination of priorities 

regarding the establishment of centres, programs, staffing 

and all related matters. 

At the meeting of November 10th, discussion initially 

centered On the reasons why Simon Fraser University should not 

become involved in this undertaking. These included: 

- the need for autonomy on the part of an interior 

university inorder that it be able effectively and 

efficiently to meet the needs as perceived by people 

in interior locations. 

The possibility of dilution of instructional cua1ity 

on the Burnaby campus. More specifically, it was 

felt that human, material and financial resources wou1 

be drained from the Burnaby campus, and that 'accepting 

the respOnsibility for university programming in 

non-metropolitan areas would lead to a diminished role 

for the Burnaby campus. 

The hidden administrative costs in setting up and 

administering university programming in the interior. 

the possible conflict of interests among those 

responsible for preparing and approving operating and 

capital submissions and allocations for the 

:

Burnaby 

campus and the university/college, even though the 

latter be separately funded. 

the inability of Simon Fraser University to respond in 

a comprehensive manner to all of the academic program 

needs of the interior. 

-2-

/

It was also stressed that there are very real educational 

needs in the interior for which the expertise of coastal univer1; 

should be used in assisting the development of university progr; 

In addition, it was acknowledged that there would be tangible 

?

•. 

and intangible benefits to the proposed project. 

?

Among these 

?

are the 

- ?

following:Simon 

Fraser University would demonstrate a pOsitive andr 

outward-looking attitude in meeting a duty and responsib? 

to participate constructively in the development and 

impro'O-ement of higher education in British Columbia and 

would avoid becoming introspective and perhaps impoveris 

- ?

it. would avoid criticism and blame for not meeting the 

?

!

challenge. ? 

.

.

- ?

it would facilitate continuing co-operation o 

?

a kind no 

hitherto conspicuous in this province between, different  

ç

universities for their mutual benefit. 

- ?

faculty standards might rise because of the high quality 

?

t

academics currently available for recruitment to univers'f 

college posts. 

•

- ?

Simon Fraser University departments could expand the 

in

scope of expertise ? 

disciplines that would be represent 

on the faculty of both the university/college and S.F.U. 

Burnaby. 

- ?

Simon Fraser University could become a recognized centre 

of expertise in planning and organizing small innovative. 

campuses and in techniques for delivering éduèation to 

remote locations. 

- ?

Simon Fraser University would benefit from the higher 

levels of effectiveness of some existing services such 

as library, computing and accounting. 

?

While improvement 

in them may not be possible with S.F.U. Burnaby resource 

alone, they could be possible with university/college 

resources and would be to the long term benefit of both.,!,•. 

'I.

.

-3-

II. Based on the discussions of the November 10, 1976 meeting, 

four alternative motions were prepared and submitted to the 

Committee at its meeting on November 17th. During coñsideratic 

of the four motions presented, a fifth motion was added. The 

five motions as finally considered by the Senate Committee on 

Academic Planning were the following: 

ALTERNATIVE MOTIONS 

A.

Simon Fraser University is willing to accept responsibili 

for establishing university programs in non-metropolitan areas 

the following terms: 

That government and the Universities Counci1 of 

British Columbia give assurances that there be 

adequate funding for university programs in non- 

metropolitan areas and that this funding be Over 

and above the funding of the three public universities. 

That Simon Fraser University have complete aithority 

regarding the hiring, assignment of responsibilities 

and evaluation of faculty and staff; the admission 

and continuation standards pertaining to students, 

and the determination of priorities regarding the 

establishment of centres, programs, staff ing and all 

related matters. 

B.

Simon Fraser University is willing to accept in 'principle 

responsibility for offering university programs in non- 

metropolitan areas and is prepared to appoint a director and 

appropriate staff to develop specific plans by December 1977, 

provided that funds for such development will be made available 

by the government. Any program implementation by Simon Fraser 

University would require prior approval by the University's 

Senate and Board of Governors, together with assurance of an 

appropriate level of funding. 

C.

Simon Fraser University is willing to accept responsibility, 

for planning University programs in non-metropolitan areas and 

is prepared to appoint a director and appropriate staff to 

develop specific plans by December 1977, provided th4t funds for 

such development will be made available by the government. Any. 

implementation of such plans by Simon Fraser University would 

require prior approval by the University's Senate and Board of 

Governors, together with assurance of an appropriate level of 

funding. 

D.

Simon Fraser University is prepared to co-operate in the 

developmentof an independent provincial university hich 

would offer programs in non-metropolitan areas. On a contractud 

basis Simon Fraser University would provide such academic and 

administrative resources as may be required. 

E.

Simon Fraser University is unwilling to accept responsibi1i 

for establishing university programs as recommended by the 

Report on University Programs in Non-Metropolitan Areas (Winegar 

Report). 

1.

2.

.

-4-

The first three motions provide for S.F.U. to assume respo 

sibility for planning and potentially implementing university 

programs at one or more 

non-metropolitan

centres under the 

academic control of S.F.U. Senate and 

financial

control of 

the S.F.U. Board of Governors. 

Motion.A makes this commitment definite subject to 

individual program approvals by Senate and the Board 

'9f

Governors, provided that suitable 

funding

is made available. 

Motion .B accepts the commitment in principle but introduces a 

clear opportunity for S.F.U. to terminate its involvement after 

Senate and the Board of Governors review detailed 

planning

proposals (rather than adhering to consideration of the 

specific proposals of the Winegard Report). Motion C reduces 

the initial S.F.U. commitment to one of 

planning

with 

,

a later 

explicit decision to be taken as to subsequent 

involvment

in

the implementation of the plan. 

Motion D rejects the position that S.F.-U. should assume 

direction of 

.

the new university operation in non-metropolitan 

areas but offer its assistance on the initial setting up of 

an independent university, on a contractual basis. 

Motion E provides for no S.F.U. involvement in tIe plannin 

or implementation process. 

IV A straw vote was then taken on each of the five notions 

with members of the Committee allowed to vote on each motion. 

The votes were as follows: 

PROPOSAL . ? 

FOR ? 

AGAINST ? 

ABSTAIN 

A

?

10

? 7 ? 

0

B

?

8

? 6 ? 

3

C

?

2

? 10 ? 

4,

D

? 12 ? 1 ? 

4

E

? 3 ? 11 ? 

3

It was noted that three of the five motions had majority 

support but it was unclear as to whether that which had the 

most support was simply the least objectionable. Consequently 

a decision tree was devised through which a majority opinion 

could be determined. Questions were formulated for decision 

in which motions related to the degree and timing of university 

involvement were separated out. Each decision would lead 

either to a further question or else terminate the disbussion. 

The process and voting are shown below. 

.

a

-5-

SCAP DECISION TREE 

1.

Question: ? 

Should there be apy formal S.F.U. participatin in 

the projected university development in non-metropolit 

areas? 

Motions: 

?

Yes (A,B,C,D) 

'

?

No (E) 

Vote: 

?

1.5

?

2

2.

Question: 

?

Shoild 

S.F.U. participation 

be limited to support of 

an independent university? 

Motions: 

?

Yes (D) 

?

No (A,B,C) 

Vote: ? 

7 ?

10

3.

Question:. ? 

Should S.F.U. commit itself at this time to accept 

total responsibility ? 

Motions: ? 

Yes (A) 

?

No (B,C) 

Vote: ? 

2 ?

15

4. Question: ? 

'Should any decision on implementation be deferred 

until atai1ed planning report 

be

available? 

Motions: ? 

Yes, (C) 

?

No (B) 

Vote: ? 

7

?

10

-6-

•

In summary, then, taking into consideration the spectrum 

of options ranging, from an unconditional no to an 

acce 

tan ce   

•

with qualifidations, SCAP approved by a vote of 10 to. 

Motion B: 

•

?

Simon Fraser University is willing to 

accept, in principle responsibility for 

?

..

of . 

fering university programs in non-           

4..

metropolitan areas and is prepared to         

,.

appoint a director and appropriate 

staff to develop specific plans by 

December 1977, provided that funds 

for such development will be made 

available by the government. 

?

Any

program implementation by Simon Fraser 

University would require prior approval 

by the University's Senate and Board of 

Governors, together with assurance of 

an appropriate level of funding. 

V.

?

The Senate Committee on Academic Planning agreed tIat this 

repOrt including 

the five motions be transmitted to Senate for 

consideration, and that Senate be encouraged to adopt the 

decision tree process utilized by the Senate Committee on 

Academic Planning in arriving at its decision on the qustion of 

the provision of university programs in non-metropolitan areas. 

*I.

•

.